Physical examination of arteriovenous fistula: The influence of professional experience in the detection of complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular access is one of the leading causes of mobilization of financial resources in health systems for people with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis. Physical examination of the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) has demonstrated its effectiveness in identifying complications. We decided to evaluate the influence of nurses' professional experience in the detection of complications of the AVF (venous stenosis and steal syndrome). The study took place in eight hemodialysis centers between May and September of 2011 in the north of Portugal. Sample was constituted by registered nurses. The nurses involved in the experiment were divided in two groups: those who had more than 5 years of experience and those who had less than 5 years of experience. Ninety-two nurses participated in the study: 34 nurses had less than 5 years of professional experience and 58 had more than 5 years of professional experience. In the practices considered by nurses in the detection of venous stenosis, there were no differences observed between the groups (P > 0.05). In steal syndrome, there were no differences observed between the groups in the practices of the nurses in the detection of this complication of the AVF (P > 0.05). We concluded that professional experience does not influence the detection of venous stenosis and steal syndrome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".